Today’s society has become extremely critical and judgmental about everything

Isn’t it true that today’s society has become extremely critical and judgmental of everything?

Despite our freedom, we are now bound in our decision-making by the opinions of others.

There are so many people today who want to do or start something of their own but they don’t.


Because they fear that society might laugh at them.

We just can’t imagine the number of people who dreamt of starting their youtube channel but didn’t because they feared that society will put them down if they committed even a single mistake.

That is why many people simply do not try since they are aware that they will make mistakes and that others would judge and mock them.

People now fear to commit even a honest mistake.

But weren’t we taught in school that making mistakes is fine as long as you learn from them?

Has society become so ruthless that even if you make one mistake, people will attack you from all sides to ensure you lose your sense of self-respect in society?

I know someone who has quit making educational videos because his peers mocked him, claiming he was unfit to teach.

Are the people around you going to dictate what you can and can’t do now?

People nowadays begin to criticize/troll for even the tiniest of mistakes.

People notice and comment on the one bad thing out of a hundred positive things.

Hats off to everyone who defied the odds and started doing something they love despite the fact that they knew many would laugh at them.

People just simply write a hate comment and leave, but they have no idea how much emotional trauma that single comment may cause.

People merely say to ignore such people when asked about a remedy to the situation.

Do you honestly believe it’s that simple to ignore? Is it really that simple to disregard?

Sometimes the issue isn’t with you; rather, it’s with the people around you, and it needs to be addressed.

What can we do to make this culture less critical, allowing people to pursue their passions without fear of being judged?

I feel-

People must learn to be courteous.

People need to allow other people to commit mistakes and not laugh at them. 

People must learn to appreciate the decisions of others.

And, above all, people must learn CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.

What do you think can be a good solution?



This Deed of Lease (“ Lease deed ”) is made at New Delhi on the 25th day of May, 2022 (“Execution Date”):


Shri Vikram Singh son of Shri Angad Singh, (hereinafter referred to as the “LESSOR” which expression shall, unless repugnant to the context or meaning thereof be deemed mean and include his heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, successors and assigns) of the One Part;


Shri Hardik Pathak son of Shri Hari Narayan Pathak, (hereinafter referred to as the “LESSEE” which expression shall, unless repugnant to the context or meaning thereof be deemed mean and include his heirs, executors, administrators, re presentatives, successors and assigns) of the Other Part.

(The Lessor and the Lessee are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party”)


  1. The Lessor is the owner and in possession of Singh buildings situated at N-10, Pitampura, Delhi, 110034;
  • The Lessor had invited bids/ proposals from eligible bidders for selection of a lessee for a property on the 1st floor in the building measuring 2700 sq. that included 2 washrooms and 10 parking space for cars in the parking area;
  • The Lessee (Hardik Pathak) submitted a proposal to the Lessor of opening a gym at the property for commercial purposes. Of all the proposals submitted by eligible bidders, the mentioned Lessee has been selected as the successful bidder;
  • The Lessee shall be provided physical possession of the Plot within 30 (thirty) days of the Execution Date along with the execution and delivery of the Possession Letter by the Parties;


    1. This lease shall be in force for a period of 5 (Five) years. The Lessee shall handover to the Lessor, vacant and peaceful possession of the property within 45 (Forty-Five) days of expiry or termination
    2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein before contained, the Lessee shall be entitled and shall have the option to terminate this Lease at any time on giving 2 calendar months’ prior notice in writing to the Lessor (s) and on expiration of the period to be mentioned in such notice this lease shall cease to be operative.
    3. On expiry of the initial Term of Lease, Lessee if lessee wishes to, can extend the term of the Lease by every subsequent month by without having to enter into a fresh Lease Deed solely by continuing to holdover property for 30 (thirty) days and paying rent in the same manner as would be paid if the Lease had not ended. Provided further that no objection to this is raised on the holding over of the possession of the property withing 15 (fifteen) days of the expiry of the initial Term or as the case may be in the event of the formation of fresh Lease Deed.
    1. The Lease Deed will be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the Delhi Rent Act, 1995.
    1. The rent for the Demised Property for the lease amounting to 400000 (Four lakh Rupees Only) shall be payable at the start of every month by the lessee to the lessor. Provided a delay of a one week shall be reasonable extension within which the rent can be paid. Provided further, in case of extraordinary circumstances, the Lessor shall provide Lessee with reasonable period to pay the due rent which will be finally decided by the Lessor upon negotiations with the lessee.
    2. The security deposit on the Demised Property stands Rs. 800000 (Eight Lakh Rupees Only) and has been paid by the lessee to the lessor. The entirety of the security deposit shall be refunded at the expiry of the term of the Lease Deed. In case, the Lease Deed is terminated before the expiry of the initial term, due to the damage caused to the property, amount equivalent to the damage shall be deducted from the security deposit and the remainder shall be returned to the Lessee.
    3. The Lessor (s), during the lease or extension thereof shall pay all present and future municipal taxes assessments and / or other outgoing or impositions whatsoever payable by the owner and / or occupier in respect of the demised premises under the law for the time being in force and shall keep the lessee/s indemnified against all claims, demands, action, suits and proceedings in respect of the same.
    4. The Lessee shall be liable to pay all charges for electricity and water consumed by the Lessee during the lease period and calculated as per the readings recorded by the respective meters installed in the demised premises.
    5. In case of default in the payment of the taxes and other statutory dues, service charges by the lessor (s) and a demand notice is served on the lessee then he may make payment of the same and such payment shall be against adjustment of future rents payable.
    1. The Lessor warrants that he has good, rightful power, total authority, and title to demise the demised premises to the Lessee in the manner hereby stated, free of all encumbrances, trusts, his dependents, executions, and attachments.
    2. Lessee shall have the exclusive right to open a gym space in the building and Lessor shall not rent out any other space in the building to a gym.
    3. During the period of lease and thereafter the Lessee at its expense will keep the property premises and other structures clean, free from defect and in good condition.
    4. On the Lessee paying monthly rent hereby reserved and covenants and conditions herein contained and on the part of the Lessee to be observed the Lessee shall quietly hold, possess and enjoy the demised premises and every part thereof during the period of lease or any extension thereof without any interruption from or by the Lessor (s) or any person or persons lawfully or equitably claiming by / through / under or in trust for the Lessor/s or successors or assigns.
    5. The Lessor shall, at his own cost, carry out all repairs including periodical painting of the demised property. The periodicity of such painting will be once in 2 years. If the Lessor fails to carry out such repairs including periodical whitewashing and painting, the Lessee shall be at liberty to get it done and adjust the amount spent or expended or such repairs, etc., towards the rent payable to the Lessor or the Lessee shall have the right to recover the same from the Lessor.
    6. The Lessee shall observe, perform and abide by or otherwise comply with Applicable Laws in so far as the same are applicable to the Lessee,
    7. The Lessee shall not, at any time during the tenancy of the lease, cause or permit any nuisance in or upon the said property and in particular shall not use or permit the to be used for any purpose, which may disturb or create problems for others in the building like very loud music, omission of odour, liquid, dust, smoke, gas, noise vibrations or fire hazards or which may cause permanent damage to the land. Lessor shall have full right to always prohibit or regulate these matters or even terminate the lease.
    8. The Lessee shall utilize the demised premise only for the purpose of running a gym and shall ensure that the Premises has the required provisions for fire/ smoke detection, fire safety and all other firefighting arrangements as may be prescribed under Applicable Law.
    9. The Lessor (s) shall not allow anyone in the building carry on any hazardous occupation or business in or upon any part of the said premises or any adjoining premises thereon which may cause loss or annoyance or inconvenience to the lessee at the demised premises.
    10. The Lessor may at any time, in its sole discretion, seek any clarifications and/or any additional information in writing from the Lessee, which may be required by the Lessor to verify all statements, information and documents submitted by the Lessee. But the Lessee shall submit to the Lessor, within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date a request is made by the Lessor, all such information and documents as is reasonably requested by the Lessor.
    11. The Lessee shall send to the Lessor by letter or email, a report stating accidents and unusual occurrences if any at the property Premises like death or injury to any person or damaged or dislodged fixed equipment or smoke or fire, such other relevant information as may be required by the Lessor, from time to time.
    12. The lessor cannot enter upon the demised premise any time he wants, except in the case of an emergency. The lessor must give a prior notice of 48 (forty-eight) hours, and at the cost of the Lessee, to enter upon and inspect the premise.
    13. The Lessee shall not make or permit any alterations or additions to the approved that would cause any harm to the walls and fittings in the Premises without obtaining the previous consent, in writing, of the Lessor.
    • This Lease Deed shall be lodged for registration by the Parties and the Parties shall admit execution thereof. All stamp duty and registration charges and related fees, costs, charges and expenses in respect of this Lease Deed and/or any other document pertaining to the lease granted hereunder or any other charges by whatever name called, shall be borne and paid by the Lessee, alone.
    • The lessee shall run the business only between 6:00 AM and 11:00 PM.
    1. The Lessee shall have exclusive right on the parking space for parking of the vehicles of staff members and customers of Lessee and the same shall not be disturbed obstructed or encroached in any manner by any persons whomsoever.
    2. The lessee or its customers cannot use other parking spaces of the building which aren’t included in the lease agreement.
    3. The Lessee shall have the absolute & exclusive right to use the entire property for smooth functioning of the gym, both outside and inside for making full use of frontages and the side walls in displaying Lessee’s signboards / advertisements. If anybody causes any intrusion, trespass or encroachment restricting the functioning of the gym, the Lessee shall be at liberty to take legal action against the violators.
    4. The Lessee will take possession of the property in “as is where is” condition and no further demand for any development, such as earth filling, raising the level, etc., shall be entertained.
    5. The Lessee shall been titled at any time during the said terms; to install, erect, fix and set up such required gym equipment in the demised premises and every part thereof as the Lessee may require without causing any material damage to the demised premises and on the expiration or sooner determination of this lease to remove the same and every part thereof at its own costs without thereby causing any material damage to the demised premises.
    6. Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove the lessee shall be entitled to surrender, leave and deliver the unused, un-utilized portion/area of the leased premises property to the Lessor in case the Lessee feels that the unused, un-utilized and excess area is not required for the purpose taken on lease during the tenure  of the lease without determining / terminating the said lease and continue in occupation the portion required for the purpose after surrendering of the unused and unutilized area / portion and in the event of such partial surrender of the un-utilized area / portion, then rent fixed for the lease will be reduced / decreased proportionately according to the area / portion surrendered by the Lessee.
    1. The Lessee confirms that all risks, losses, taxes, liabilities and payments arising in connection with the gym therein for the period shall forever remain the absolute liability and responsibility of the Lessee alone and the Lessor shall assume no liability, responsibility or obligation, monetary or otherwise, in relation to the period during which the Lessee was in occupation of the Premises.
    1. If the lessee shall at any time fail and neglect to perform and observe any of the agreed covenants and conditions herein contained, then the lessor shall be entitled at its option to forthwith determine this Lease.
    2. Misrepresentation by the Lessee, either under this Lease Deed or under any other documents submitted by the Lessee to the Lessor, is made or discovered or if it comes to the notice of the Lessor that the Lessee has given an incorrect/ inaccurate/ misleading information or has made any misrepresentation or suppressed any material information/ facts then this shall be deemed to be a “Lessee Event of Default”. In such case, lessor may give a notice in writing to the Lessee for remedying the breach and if the Lessee fails to do so within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of such notice, the Lessor may terminate this Lease Deed without giving any further notice.;
    3. As and when the property is no longer required by the Lessee for the purpose as set out herein, the Lessee may, subject to approval from the Lessor, forthwith relinquish and restore the Premises in favor of the Lessor, provided such surrender of the Premises by the Lessee is made before cancellation of the allotment or termination of this Lease Deed by the Lessor for breach of any of the covenants of this Lease Deed.
    4. In case of cancellation due to a breach of any of the covenants of this Lease Deed then no refund of the allotment cost shall be made to the Lessee
    1. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this lease deed, or any breach or alleged breach thereof, shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The lessee shall be entitled to appoint one arbitrator and lessor shall be entitled to appoint one arbitrator and that those two arbitrators shall nominate a third arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings shall be held in Delhi.
    1. Upon occurrence of a Force Majeure Event like COVID-19 pandemic, Act of God, extremely adverse weather conditions, lightning, earthquake, landslide, cyclone, flood, volcanic eruption, chemical or radioactive contamination or ionizing radiation, fire or explosion or any event or circumstances of a nature analogous to any of the foregoing the lessee shall by notice report such occurrence to the other Party forthwith.
    2. The lessee shall not be entitled to any relief for or in respect of a Force Majeure Event unless it shall have notified the lessor of the occurrence of the Force Majeure Event as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any event no later than 2 (two) days after the lessee knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of its occurrence, and shall have given particulars of the probable material effect that the Force Majeure Event is likely to have on the performance of its obligations under this Lease Deed.
    1. All notices can be sent by hand, by post or courier at the respective address given below:

Vikram Singh

N-10, Singh Buildings, Pitampura, Delhi, 110034.


Mukesh Pathak.

A-05, Pasha Court Apartments, Dwarka, Delhi, 110037


(Description of the “Said Premises”)

Property measures 2700 sq.ft and is in 1st floor of Singh Buildings situated at A-05, Pasha Court Apartments, Dwarka, Delhi, 110037 and is worth INR 20000000. The property includes 2 washrooms, 4 fans, 1 water purifier, 2 Air conditioners, 15 light bulbs, 2 storage area.


WITNESSESS                                                                                    LESSOR / S

(1). Deepak Rathore

(2). Sidharth Raju                                                                                 LESSEE

Should the Criminal Procedure Act 2022 be Repealed as it Conflicts with the Right Against Self-Incrimination?


Interrogation of suspects and accused is critical in any criminal investigation in order to draw the facts from them. Most tactics, many of that were based on kind of torture which were utilized by investigating authorities to seek data from convicted and the suspected since ancient times. New ways of lie detection have emerged with the advancement of technology which eliminated the police’s use of “third-degree torture.” However, legal problems have been raised about the legality of tests such as Narco Analysis, with some supporting it based on legal considerations and others dismissing it as a flagrant breach of constitutional obligations. (Rathore) The legal principle of “Nemo Tenetur Seipsum Accusare” declares that no one should be forced to offer any evidence, statement, or answer that shows him guilty of any crime. (Nandidni Sathpathy v P. L. Dani, 1978) This ancient legal principle, sometimes known as the “Right to Silence,” is talked about by both Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Identification of Prisoners Act is a long-standing law that provides for the collection of photographs and measurements of offenders. (Manikam V State, 2009) By far, there has been no legal conflict between the aforementioned legislation. However, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act of 2022, which supersedes the Identification of Prisoners Act of 1920, has sparked a slew of controversies and debates. It has been argued that the act requires an individual to provide measurements that include not only “finger impressions”, “palm-print impressions”, “footprint impressions”, “photographs”, but also “iris” and “retina scans”, “physical and biological samples”, and “behavioral attributes”, which could violate a person’s right against self-incrimination that is ensured by Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. The present article argues that the Criminal procedure Act 2022 must be repealed as it does conflict with the right against self-Incrimination.


One could argue, citing various decisions such as Kathu Kalu’s case, where the court stated that being a “witness” could be equatable to presenting proof in the sense of making oral or written statements, but in the broader sense of the expression, giving a “thumb impression” or impression of “palm” or “foot” or “finger” or “specimen writing” or trying to expose a part of the body by an accused person with the intention of identification are not included in the expression “to be a witness.” Even in Shallendra Nath Sinha v. The State, the Calcutta High Court Division Bench concluded that an order for the accused to produce “specimen handwriting” did not amount to compelling the accused to give testimony and distinguished Sharma’s Case since it involved a search warrant for the production of documents. Also, in Ram Swarup v. State and Others, the Allahabad High Court held that because it would not be a document provided for examination by the court, writing obtained by the court under Section 73 of the Evidence Act would not be regarded as “evidence,” and the court’s directive under Section 73 would not be affected by article 20. (3). (Srivastava, 1996)

But the main problem with this act is that terminologies like “measurements” and “behavioral attributes” leave a lot of space for interpretation, and it also doesn’t clarify what a “biological sample” implies, which may be “Narco analysis”, “Polygraph test”, and “Brain Electrical Activation Profile”. The assumption behind “polygraph testing” is that when a subject lies in response to a question, he or she produces physiological responses that differ from those that occur naturally. Several types of equipment are attached to the subject during the “polygraph examination” to measure and record the subject’s physiological responses. The examiner then reviews these results, analyses them, and assesses the subject’s replies’ believability. “Polygraph examinations” make use of instruments such as “cardiographs”, “pneumographs”, “cardio-cuffs”, and “sensitive electrodes”. They monitor things like “respiration”, “blood pressure”, “blood flow”, “pulse”, and “galvanic skin resistance”. The truthfulness or falsity of the subject is determined by relying on physiological response records. These tests breach the right against self-incrimination because we know that if an accused gives evidence willingly or under a request, he cannot utilize article 20(3), but in this case, the evidence is extracted involuntarily and the accused has no choice to refuse according to the new act. (Sethi & Agarwal, 2021)

The right against self-incrimination was established to protect the integrity of the legal system, prevent false evidence, and ensure fairness. Imposing such measures on the accused would negate the purpose while also raising questions about the fairness of our proceedings. However, it has been emphasized numerous times that the victims’ statements made during the test are not utilized against them, but rather to aid the investigation. (Jain, 2019) But this issue was brought before in the case of Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court dismissed the High Court’s reliance on the “utility”, “reliability”, and “validity” of “narco-analysis tests” and other such tests as means of criminal investigation. The Court determined that forcing an individual to undergo “narco-analysis tests”, “polygraph tests”, and “brain-mapping” constitutes a necessary compulsion. The subject is unable to decide whether or not to answer a question because the responses provided during these tests are not given intentionally and willingly, resulting in “testimonial compulsion”, which is protected under Article 20. (3). The “narco-analysis test,” according to the Court, is a harsh and inhumane treatment that violates an individual’s “right to privacy” and “right against self-incrimination”, and that courts cannot allow the “narco-analysis test” to be administered against the individual’s consent. (Saxena, 2019)

A person can use protection under the right against self-incrimination when the three ingredients of Article 20(3) are satisfied i.e.,  i) the person must be accused of an offense ii) Compulsion to be a witness, iii) Compulsion resulting in giving evidence against himself.  The Criminal Procedure Act violates the right against self-incrimination since it requires the accused to be a witness, which entails giving evidence. Because firstly this act also applies only to those who are guilty of an offense punishable under any law in force at the time or arrested in connection with an offense punishable under any law in force at the day, he must allow a police officer or a prison official to take his measurement. (Criminal Procedure Act, 2022)

Secondly, this act compels the person to be a witness because anyone arrested under any law is required to give his measurements as demanded without any choice. After all, if a person who is compelled to enable measurements to be taken under this act opposes or refuses, the police officer or jail officer may take the measurements lawfully (Criminal Procedure Act, 2022) and this objection to or refusal to allow measures to be taken under this Act would be prosecuted under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. (Criminal Procedure Act, 2022)

Thirdly, because the clause is so ambiguous and unclear about what tests would be utilized, the police may threaten the accused with the potential of performing tests like “polygraph tests” to find out the specifics and compel him to be a witness. And such compulsion will result in the person being interrogated giving evidence against himself since the person being interrogated may make self-incriminating remarks due to fears that these procedures will extract the truth. Such behavior on the side of investigators is more likely to occur when the person being interrogated is unaware of his or her legal rights or is otherwise intimidated. Because this statute does not specify terms like “measurements,” “biological sample,” and “behavioral attributes,” the police may end up using tests like “polygraph tests”, as described above. And we know from Selvi v. State of Karnataka that it amounts to testimonial compulsion because the answers given during these examinations are not given knowingly and voluntarily. As a result, it satisfies the three requirements while violating the right to self-incrimination.

Another issue is that all private information, such as someone’s “physical” and “biological samples”, “behavioral characteristics”, “finger impressions”, “iris” and “retina scans”, and so on, is logged and stored in a central database, which is a violation of someone’s privacy from every viewpoint. The act of 2022 further stipulates that data maintained in a national database by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) can be utilized to prove or disprove a case not only in the case in which an accused is now being tried, but in any past, future, or parallel case. The record of measures will be kept in digital or electronic form for “seventy-five” years from the date of collection, which raises concerns not only about it being used for self-incrimination in the future but also about the right to privacy. To illustrate, suppose Mr. A is accused of robbery and is placed in judicial custody; under the Act of 2022, his measurements will be taken and stored in the central database. Assume Mr. A was charged with another offense 30 years later. The result of this is that if Mr. A submits such information for a crime committed today, the investigating officer will use that information to construct a case 30 years later as well. In other words, Mr. A’s information will be used against him to prove his guilt.

In India, not only the constitution but also some CRPC provisions, including Sec 161(2), highlight a suspect’s right to remain silent and that he or she shouldn’t be coerced to give any evidence that could lead to punitive measures against him. “No individual shall be compelled to be a witness against oneself in any criminal proceeding,” the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution states. The preceding right has obtained a broad scope after being construed by the courts in various decisions. In civil and criminal proceedings, the right to self-incrimination applies to both witnesses and parties. It covers both “oral” and “written” evidence, as well as any “disclosures”, such as answers, that support a “criminal conviction” or provide a part of the network of proof needed for a prosecution. It is also a basic aspect in the UK that no one suspected of a crime should be forced to uncover “documents” or “items” that incriminate themselves. Except in a few limited circumstances, no witness, whether party or outsider should be forced to respond to any question or provide any document that could subject the witness (or the witness’s spouse) to “criminal prosecution”, “penalty”, or “forfeiture”. The purpose of this privilege is to motivate people to give testimony while also protecting them from damage or undue difficulty as a result of doing so. (Saxena, 2019)

Other violations by the act include violation of Article 14 of the Constitution by delegating too many powers to the executive in two ways: first, “by giving the executive broad rule-making powers with no guidance”, and second, “by empowering functionaries” like “police” and “prison officers” to decide who they can oblige to give measurements. Furthermore, the act’s section 3 does not anticipate all members of the class of people enlisted giving their measures. Only those individuals who police or prison authorities believe are obliged to furnish the measures will be forced to do so. Because there is no provision outlining any norms or principles by which such a requirement may be evaluated, it is safe to assume that the act is arbitrary in its sight. (JAVED, 2022) Only in the case of a biological sample, an exception is made. The exemption states that a person may decline to provide such samples unless he is arrested for a crime: (i) “against a woman or a child”, or (ii) “with a minimum sentence of “seven years” in jail”. The first exemption is broad in scope. For example, it could contain a theft case involving a woman. A rule like this would contradict the equality of law between someone who stole something from a man and someone who stole something from a woman. (“The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill”, 2022)


The right against self-incrimination is important to ensuring freedom from police overabundance and torment and providing personal and biometric information under duress and/or without authorization is arbitrary and erroneous. The act of 2022 requires record-keeping, which violates the right to privacy. Instead of empowering such obvious attacks on fundamental rights and privileges, Parliament should enact legislation to protect them. It is more necessary to invest in investigating technology and tools. Sensitizing investigating authorities to better and more efficient methods of investigation is more fruitful than trampling on the fundamental rights of the accused.

In conclusion, the act does not significantly contribute to the goal of working on the sufficiency and efficacy of investigation and enhancing State Machinery but rather increases managerial weights while also infringing on Fundamental rights. Although the Criminal Procedure Bill has now become an act, this provision is quite ambiguous and subject to misuse, so it should be repealed or terms like “measurements,” “behavioral attributes,” and “Biological sample” should be more specific to avoid misuse as they can be used by the state to collect self-incriminating evidence against any arrested, convicted, or detained person without their consent. As previously discussed, this violates the right against self-incrimination guaranteed by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. (Hasan, 2022)


  1. Rathore, D. (n.d.). Article 20 (3) of constitution of india and Narco Analysis. Legal Service India. Retrieved May 15, 2022, from
  2. Nandidni Sathpathy v P. L. Dani (Supreme Court 1978).
  3. Srivastava, U. (1996). IMMUNITY FROM SELF INCRIMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 20 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Retrieved 15 May 2022, from
  5. Jain, Y. (2019). The right to remain silent: A case commentary on Smt. Selvi v State of Karnataka – iPleaders. iPleaders. Retrieved 15 May 2022, from
  6. Saxena, S. (2019). Right against Self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. iPleaders. Retrieved 15 May 2022, from
  7. Criminal Procedure Act (2022).
  8. JAVED, S. (2022). Unravelling concerns over the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022. The Leaflet. Retrieved 15 May 2022, from
  9. The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022. PRS Legislative Research. (2022). Retrieved 15 May 2022, from
  10. Hasan, Z. (2022). Explainer: Why the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act Is Being Challenged in Court. The Wire. Retrieved 15 May 2022, from

 Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs Union of India


The first article under Part III of the Indian Constitution is Article 12, which does not guarantee any right but specifies the authorities and the bodies, that are deemed to be “state” and against whom the fundamental rights can be enforced.[1] The apex court of the country through its various landmark judgments has laid down the tests for determining whether a body would fall within the meaning of the term local authorities and other authorities and hence would be considered “state” or not. [2] Here, in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs Union of India [3], the test laid down in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology[4] was used to determine whether BCCI is a state or not.


Zee Telefilms Ltd is a media and entertainment group based in India. The second respondent, the Board of Control for Cricket in India, is a Tamil Nadu-based society that claims to be recognized by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports of the Union of India. The contract giving exclusive television rights for a four-year term was terminated by the Board of Control of Cricket on September 21, 2004. A writ petition was filed under Article 32, arguing that the contract termination was arbitrary and in violation of Article 14. On the day of the hearing, Mr. K.K Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Second Respondent, raised the preliminary issue of the petition’s maintainability, arguing that a petition against the Board is not maintainable under Article 32 because it is not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. [5] Since the issue was treated as a critical one, it was heard right away.

Major Arguments by Petitioner

(a) The BCCI is responsible for all cricket-related activities, and the squad it fields is known as the “Indian Team “, they wear uniforms with the national flag and are recognized as India’s sporting ambassadors.

(b) Today’s players are professionals who commit their lives to the game, and players have the right to be considered for participation in the game under Article 19(1)(g). In exercising its disciplinary powers, the BCCI can ban players from playing cricket.

(c) It is also submitted that even domestically, all representative crickets can only be under its aegis. At any level of cricket, no representative tournament can be held without the authorization of the BCCI or its affiliates.[6]

Major Arguments by Respondent

(a) There is no representation of the Government or any Statutory Body. And the government has no control over the function, finance, administration, management, or affairs, nor does it receive any grant of assistance from the government in any form or manner in this regard.

(b) Respondent no.2 organizes cricket matches and/or tournaments between the Teams of its Members and with the Teams of the members of the International Cricket Council (ICC) which is also an autonomous Body dehors any Government control.

(c) Respondent No.2 has never been granted monopoly status, either by statute or by the government. Any other organization might organize its own matches, and neither Respondent No. 2 nor the Government could object.[7]


The petition under Article 32 could not be sustained, according to the Majority Judges, because they agreed with most of the points made by the respondent in this matter. It was held that just because a non-governmental organization does something public does not make it a “State” for the purposes of Article 12.[8] Also, the Board’s actions do not meet the criteria outlined in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology[9] to qualify it as a “State” under Article 12. However, according to the Minority judges, the board was a state since, despite the fact that it was not constituted by legislation, the board’s Monopoly Status was undeniable, and hence the petition was maintainable as per minority opinion.


1. Article 12 :

I agree with the majority bench that BCCI won’t come under the definition of “State” as the Board does not come within the purview of any of the six legal tests laid down by the Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology to make it a “State” under Article 12. Hence, I feel that the petition was rightly dismissed. The Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology[10] case is significant in this regard because the court took into account all previous precedents, interpreted the term “other authorities” for the purposes of Part III of the constitution, removing all doubts about the same because the definition of State was previously treated as exhaustive and limited to the authorities or those that could be read ejusdem generis with the authorities mentioned in the definition of article 12 itself. The court itself held that the principles formulated in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib[11] were not rigid and therefore a body falls within any of them, it’s to be considered to be a state within the meaning of Article 12.

It is important to understand that treating the Board as a “State” will have far-reaching consequences for other national sports federations as well as some other bodies that represent India in international forums in the fields of art, culture, beauty pageants, cultural activities, music and dance, science and technology, or other such competitions as they will be required to be treated as “States” within the meaning of Article 12, potentially opening the floodgates of litigation under Article 32. Many of the federations or entities described above perform tasks and/or exercise powers that are, if not identical, at least comparable to those performed by the Board. Many athletes and others who represent their respective organizations make a living from it (e.g. football, tennis, golf, beauty pageants, etc.). As a result, if the Cricket Board is considered a State for the purposes of Article 12, there is no reason why other organizations in comparable positions may not be considered “State” as well. The fact that cricket is a popular sport in India cannot be used to distinguish these organizations from the Board.[12] Any distinction based on the body’s popularity, finances, or public opinion would be a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, as justifiable discrimination must be founded on actual facts, not mere assumptions. As a result, the Board cannot be singled out as “other authority” for the purposes of Article 12. For the reasons described above, I believe that none of the other federations or organizations mentioned above, including the Board, can be regarded as a “State” for the purposes of Article 12.

2. Monopoly:

It is true that the second Respondent wields immense authority, from selecting and preparing players at the grassroots level to organizing the Duleep Trophy, Ranji Trophy, and other tournaments, as well as selecting teams and umpires for international competitions. BCCI has a monopoly on the market. However, there is no law prohibiting other organizations from forming a similar organization. Respondent No.2 has never been granted monopoly status, either by statute or by the government. As rightly contended by respondent 2 that it only has a monopoly because of its first-mover advantage and the fact that it is the only player in the field of cricket control. Any other body can organize its own matches, and neither Respondent No. 2 nor the Government could object. The clearest example is Subash Chandra, the owner of Zee Telefilms, who decided to take matters into his own hands and began recruiting various domestic and foreign players, promising them big sums of money in exchange for playing Indian Cricket League.[13]

 Although the BCCI immediately declared the league and the players who signed up for it to be rebels, the main reason for the ICL’s failure was that it failed to capture the imagination of Indian fans, partly due to the absence of big-ticket Indian superstars and partly due to the ICL’s inability to take the tournament to different venues to create regional rivalries. If ICL had been successful, it may have given the BCCI a tough time and could have put an end to its monopoly, but there is no doubting that similar organizations or leagues like ICL could be formed in the future with better planning to compete with the BCCI. The memory of ICL serves as a continual reminder to BCCI to maintain high levels of play both at home and abroad, lest free-market economics allow another, more enthusiastic player to stage a coup and run away with the game.[14]

3. Article 19(1)(g):

Yes, I agree that the BCCI has a monopoly in cricket, and it would be quite difficult for any organization to establish a similar body and compete with it. However, I disagree that it violates the cricketer’s fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g). The petitioners contend that because cricket has become a profession, players and today the Board controls the said rights of a citizen. The petitioners also stated that the Board has all-pervasive powers to control a person’s cricketing career under the Memorandum of Association and the rules and regulations, as well as due to its monopolistic control over the game of cricket, as it has the sole authority to decide on a person’s membership and affiliation to any particular Cricketing Association, which would affect his right to play cricket at any level in India and abroad. As a result, the petitioners believe that the BCCI should be considered a state.

However, if this argument were to be used, every employer that governs how his employees work would be considered a state.[15] Although BCCI’s rules prohibit an Indian player, whether contracted or uncontracted, from playing franchise cricket – T20 leagues, T10 leagues, or any other competition of “that format” – outside India, but BCCI does allow players to play first-class and List A matches outside the country. A good example is Cheteshwar Pujara, India’s Test specialist, who was recently signed by Sussex, an English county cricket side, for the 2022 season. He will also represent the club in the Royal One-Day Cup, which begins on August 2nd. As a result, it can’t be argued that the BCCI forbids players from playing elsewhere because any BCCI-affiliated player can enter any competition with the BCCI’s approval. Former BCCI General Manager Karim Saba argued that if the BCCI enables its senior and junior players to participate in global T20 tournaments, there will be very few cricketers left to play domestic cricket, which is rational. A huge void will be created in BCCI cricket, just as it has been in other nations that have permitted its players to participate.[16]

And, although there is no doubt that Article 19(1)(g) gives all citizens the fundamental right to practice any profession, trade, employment, or business[17], and that such a right may only be controlled by the State under Article 19(1)(g)(6). As a result, any breach of this right must be brought solely against the State; unlike the rights under Articles 17 and 21, which may be brought against non-state entities, including persons, the right under Article 19(1)(g) cannot be brought against an individual or a non-State institution. Thus, to argue that every entity, which validly or invalidly arrogates to itself the right to regulate or for that matter even starts regulating the fundamental right of the citizen under Article 19(1)(g), is a State within the meaning of Article 12 is to put the cart before the horse. The pre-requisite for invoking the enforcement of a fundamental right under Article 32 is that the violator of that right should be a State first. Therefore, the petitioner cannot allege that the board violates fundamental rights and is, therefore, State within Article 12. And as the petitioner has failed to establish that the Board is State within the meaning of Article 12.[18] Therefore, assuming there is a violation of any fundamental right by the Board that will not make the Board a “State” for the purpose of Article 12. Hence. while Board enjoys a monopoly in cricket exercising enormous power which is neither in doubt nor in dispute, I don’t think BCCI in any way infringes the fundamental right of any cricketer.


The court through its interpretations has time and again tried to include more and more bodies within the definition of state so that maximum people can enforce their fundamental rights. In this case, it was rightly contended by respondent 2 that the Board has never been granted monopoly status, either by statute or by the government and that there is no law prohibiting other organizations from forming a similar organization. The court using the test laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology rightly ruled that the petition under Article 32 cannot be maintained as BCCI is not a “State”. Also, the right under Article 19(1)(g) cannot be brought against an individual or a non-State institution. Hence, I feel that the petition was rightly dismissed.

[1] The Constitution of India, s 12

[2] Manshi Sinha, ‘Explained: Article 12 of the Indian Constitution'(LexForti,12 May 2021) < >accessed 3 April 2022

[3] (2005) 4 SCC 649

[4] (2002) 5 SCC 111

[5] Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649

[6] Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649

[7] Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649

[8] Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649

[9] (2002) 5 SCC 111

[10] (2002) 5 SCC 111

[11] (1981) 1 SCC 722; AIR 1981 SC 487

[12] Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649

[13] Rajesh Tiwary, ‘Remembering Indian Cricket League, the ‘rebel’ that led to IPL would have turned 10 today'(Firstpost,30 Nov 2017) <>accessed 3 April 2022

[14] Rajesh Tiwary, ‘Remembering Indian Cricket League, the ‘rebel’ that led to IPL would have turned 10 today'(Firstpost,30 Nov 2017) <>accessed 3 April 2022

[15] Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649

[16] ‘Saba Karim Explains How BCCI Not Allowing Players to Participate in Foreign T20 Leagues Has Helped India'(News18, 22 Aug 2021) <>accessed 3 April 2022

[17] The Constitution of India, s 19(1)(g)

[18] Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649